On 2019-06-13 12:28 p.m., James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 12:07 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
On 2019-06-13 11:31 a.m., Bart Van Assche wrote:
[...]
Please explain what makes you think that part_nr_sects_read() must
be protected
by an RCU read lock.
Dear reviewer,
Please rephrase the above sentence without the accusative tone.
Specifically, please do not use the phrase "what makes you think"
in this or any other code review. For example: "I believe that..."
is more accurate and less provocative.
Imputing "tone" to email is something we try to avoid because it never
ends well, particularly for non-native speakers. Some languages
(Russian) have no articles and if you take any English phrase and strip
out all the articles it sounds a lot more aggressive.
Like you, I am not a native North American English speaker but I
have lived here long enough to realize that "what makes you think ..."
is not a pleasantry and it may be fishing for an emotive
reaction. It is not the type of expression that professionals would
use to make a point in a public forum.
I'm not talking about articles (e.g. "a" and "the"), I'm talking
about pronouns like "you" and "I". I'm not aware of any languages
without pronouns. IMO Bart uses expressions with "you" in them too
often when he is expressing _his_ opinion to the contrary.
Observation: as a Canadian citizen when crossing the US border I
believe contradicting a US border official with the phrase "what
makes you think ..." could lead to a rather bad outcome :-)
Please make review comments with that in mind.
Different situation: we aren't profiling reviewers ...
Would you have used that expression when addressing a teacher at
high school or university? I'm looking for a yardstick of where
a reviewer should "pitch" their responses. The way you address
someone who has the ability to make your life uncomfortable (e.g.
by refusing you entry into their country) may just be such a
yardstick.
P.S. Do we have any Linux code-of-conduct for reviewers?
It's the same one for all interactions:
Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst
But I would remind everyone that diversity isn't just a
gender/race/LGBT issue it also means being understanding of the
potential difficulties non-native speakers have with email in English.
To quote
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html
to which your above reference indirectly refers:
It calls for a "harassment-free experience for everyone,
regardless of ... expression ..."
So informing someone (not for the first time) that readers of the
language in which they are writing, may take offence at their
expression is: not showing an "understanding of the potential
difficulties non-native speakers have" and thus is harassment?
Balance that with the angle of a reviewer trying to intimidate
the person presenting the code. Could that also be harassment?
In this case I see little evidence of the "potential difficulties"
to which you refer.
More generally:
IMO those who have power speak in a condescending fashion and act
unilaterally in the matter of reviewing and applying patches. A
select few are allowed to apply patches seemingly without any
review and ignore error reports or attempts at public review.
It certainly does not look like a system based on merit.
Doug Gilbert
